Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Stoobalou writes "Facebook co-founders Mark Zuckerberg and Dustin Moskovitz are among the latest batch of 17 billionaires who have promised to give away at least half of their fortunes, after signing up to a philanthropic campaign led by Microsoft founder Bill Gates 3.0 and celebrity investor Warren Buffett. By signing up to The Giving Pledge, the mega-rich make a vague promise — sorry, 'moral commitment' — to give away more than half of their fortune at some point during their lifetime."

Call me old fashion but when you "give something away." You let it go. You don't set up a foundation and put the money in that foundation and then parcel out small percentages yearly as your foundation invests it back into businesses and countries that you have an interest in. I've bitched about this before [slashdot.org] (I'm aware that the couple hundred I've donated in my life does not measure up to tens of billions) but I think it should be clarified. A lot of these billionaires do not give the money away. They put the money into a foundation that then invests the large amounts of money into the American economy and sometimes businesses or areas of development that they hold an interest in. Once the return is netted at the end of the year, then this is what is "given away" in the strictest sense of the words. They treat researchers and poor starving nations like children. It has its benefits but I see it as largely detrimental. I understand that in doing this the foundation can continue to give indefinitely (until the American stock market dumps) but what I don't understand is that potential that the money has could be equally useful to the target medicines and poor that are supposed to be helped. If you don't think that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is American-centric and nationalistic in its investments, why don't you read his warning letter about China developing alternative energy [slashdot.org]. To quote Kenny Powers: "Sure, I've been called a xenophobe, but the truth is, I'm not. I honestly just feel that America is the best country and the other countries aren't as good. That used to be called patriotism."

Here's my prediction for Zuck's money: He's going to pledge a trillion dollars it to something like stopping malaria in Africa. It's going to go into a foundation. The foundation will make money yearly by investing in indexes and mutual funds spread across American (not African) companies managed by some genius living comfortably far from any malaria parasite. At the end of each year, they're going to have ~5.5% to give away. They have American medical research companies apply for research grants. They arrange to have malaria medicine created and licensed from American companies shipped to Africa. They can't give that money to governments like the Democratic Republic of the Congo because government corruption will wick away much of that. And they might buy small arms and attack their neighbors with them. They get treated like children and they stay children. At the end of that year, America prevails economically with a sound infrastructure while the DRC remains malaria infested, corrupted and without any sort of infrastructure to provide clean potable water, sewage treatment or electricity to large areas of populace.

So I have to kind of wonder if they're "giving money away" or if they're putting money into an engine that just persists existing problems while helping the American economy? Because people have been donating vast extensive sums of money to stop malaria historically and where are we at in that fight?

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that something is happening but I really question when I read "give away" in the news articles when a better term might be "endowed" or just call it what it often is, "an investment in America resulting in good will."

No, you're full of bullshit. A one-time shot of a half-billion dollars will get pissed away in a year. Put that money in a foundation and consistently donate the interest, however, and you get a significant chunk of change going to the cause every year, forever.

No, you're full of bullshit. A one-time shot of a half-billion dollars will get pissed away in a year. Put that money in a foundation and consistently donate the interest, however, and you get a significant chunk of change going to the cause every year, forever.

Forever? Just like the stock market is going to last forever? Just like the money the foundation lost from the BP oil spill [davemanuel.com]? They lowered their payout they had promised [gatesfoundation.org] following the American housing and financial crisis and I'm sure it's because they didn't get the money they thought was "already in the bag." Of course we can't get at any hard figures of how much they had pre-market crash and right after it but I'm going to go ahead and say you're full of bullshit in thinking that they are investing in

It has so far. Those interested in long-term do-gooding in a particular niche think in longer terms. Changes in education, for example, are cultural issues. That takes generations, not one fiscal year, or the few years spanning some cyclical fluctuation in the value of equities. Over time, a halfway rationally managed pile of equities always has and always will grow in value. If all of the assets in a well balanced portfolio completely cease to exist, you can rest assured that there are far, far bigger problems than splitting hairs over whether it was smarter to buy a big pile of mosquito netting once, or setting up a foundation chartered to buy them regularly and forever.

The stock market is a gamble. Any thoughts otherwise are true bullshit.

Sure, if you only think in the very short term. And you think that, what... handing all of your resources over, in one lump, as cash, to a particular charity for use right then and there... that's not a gamble? We've seen many large funds get hoovered up by corrupt recipients over the years. Better for there to be oversight, guided by the principles of those that set up the foundations. And if they are students of a couple hundred years of history, they'll know that reasonably well balanced long-term investments grow, often very, very substantially. No multi-billion-dollar foundation is going to put all of its stock in a company in Venezuela that could at any moment by rendered worthless by Hugo Chavez in one of his weekly fits of nationalization, or tie up all of the funds in real-estate on one coast of one continent.

Your couple hundred dollars of investment can be handled the way you describe. To extend the period of time in which a large donation has effect, there has to be some sort of structure. If that's a lawyer handing out million dollar checks every year for a thousand years, then great. He can just sit on a big ole pile of cash in his storage room and hope there's never a fire...

In reality though, the "gamble" you are griping about is the structure that ensures the longevity of the fund. The objective isn't to improve American as an economic power, though that may be a result, the objective is to provide solutions to the entire world. I'm certain we'd (Americans) love to buy Nike's from Congo rather than China. I'm pretty sure we like Nigerian oil. Africa has a lot to offer, but the process of setting up infrastructure in a place where basic health concerns are so great is not an easy one. Charities have been trying to solve that problem for decades now. The primary issue that most note? Not enough funding... Now Gates/Buffett have tried to make a near-inexhaustible source from which this funding can come. If you are having a hard time with the way they handle the money, make a billion dollars, contribute half, then tell them what you think. 'Til then, shut up with the pedantry and nitpicking.

Seems sensible to me. Helping the American economy is not a zero sum game is it? And a regular fairly predictable income is a lot more useful for a charity than a single lump sum. It allows them to plan ahead.

They put the money into a foundation that then invests the large amounts of money into the American economy and sometimes businesses or areas of development that they hold an interest in. Once the return is netted at the end of the year, then this is what is "given away" in the strictest sense of the words

The objective is to make money for the charity, so more money can be given out. It does not matter to the foundation if that's an American business or not, just that it has to be profitable. If African companies are not profitable then the foundation will simply squander the money away.

If you don't think that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is American-centric and nationalistic in its investments, why don't you read his warning letter about China developing alternative energy [slashdot.org].

What has that go to do with the foundation? It's not even mentioned there. Dare a person have different goals and objectives in his life? I think you're letting bias cloud your judgment. Just throwing the money at a problem does not solve it. Signing a check of a trillion dollars to the African government will just make the situation worse. A foundation is far better.

Regarding nationalism, this explanation of their approach overtly expresses that one of their grant making priorities is "improving high school education in the United States." I cannot deny that this is America-centric, but I wholeheartedly support the idea that a wealthy person should contribute to the ongoing positive development of his own country.

I don't see anywhere that the stated goal of the donation is to help everyone in the world.If most of the donated money stays within the donors country, that may easily be what is desired; and if the foundation donates 5% annually to causes in Africa, well, then it's 5% more than it would be otherwise. If there aren't profitable companies in Africa, then it's not the duty of a malaria foundation to make these companies happen, they should just invest where it's best.

Except that developing cures for diseases isn't like buying a jacket. It's not like there's some cure that they're "saving up for" $50 million at a time, bit by bit, rather than just buying it off the shelf for $5 billion.

And even if they did give the billions of dollars directly to a charity, what would you expect the charity to do? Hire enough people to blow through it in a year? Spend it all on a huge facility with all the absolute best equipment, then run out of money to fund it in a couple of years? I suspect that they might, instead, just hire enough people to effectively work on the problem, in a reasonably sized facility, then save the rest to pay their expenses and salaries for the next X years. But if the rest is saved, what are you going to do? Just stick it in a bank account? No, with that kind of money, it would really make sense to invest it and hire some smart people to take care of it and hopefully earn more money for you.

In the end, it ends up being the same thing. So really, what's your point? The way it works now, the research institutions don't have to also worry about being investment experts; they just get their money and do their thing. They foundation gets to do its thing and not have to worry about also running a research institution. Personally, I think that's a good solution and maybe helps to eliminate some conflicts of interest.

It's a feature not a bug. How should you treat a country that has dozens of examples of how to elevate a country above crushing poverty, yet chooses not to follow those examples? And researchers could always get their funding from a source that respects them, say themselves, for example. Sure you're not going to fund a ten billion dollar collider on a associate professor's income, but a lot of those people are paid more than adequately for funding their own research.

Not to be trite, but just giving away money doesn't really help. Trillions have been pumped into Africa as Western aid over the years, and there is diddly-squat to show for it. Using money intelligently is not a bad thing to do: a malaria cure is more use than a malaria net, even if everyone gets one.

I remember (but I cannot find) that a one-time lump sum handout to families in developing countries actually turned out to help quite well, as the family usually invested the money sensibly.

As for the malaria, you can actually change the parasites' behaviour by installing malaria nets. The reason for that was explained in a ted talk: ill people, infected, will stay indoors and are no longer accessible to other mosquitoes, thereby preventing the spread of the parasite. It is therefore in the parasites' best

That is the same reason why fair trade coffee bothers me. If it is not economically viable, why are they still producing it? Are there infrastructure issues that force them to produce coffee instead of food? Maybe those issues need to be addressed by people instead of just paying more for coffee. Fair trade is basically giving the coffee farms an allowance. They are better off day to day, but in the long run they are dependent on us and our demands. They should be supporting their own economy first so in th

He's going to pledge a trillion dollars it to something like stopping malaria in Africa. It's going to go into a foundation. The foundation will make money yearly by investing in indexes and mutual funds spread across American (not African) companies managed by some genius living comfortably far from any malaria parasite.

I'm not sure that close proximity to wild malaria is anything that facilitates anti-malaria medicine. Seems to me it's not such a good idea to risk all of your researchers getting malaria. I know your situation is hypothetical, but hypothetically, i'd hope his foundation would dole out money to the organizations best suited to stopping malaria. Those companies might be Swedish, or Japanese, or American, or from some African nation. The thing is, i don't know how many African pharmaceutical or pesticide comp

They can't give that money to governments like the Democratic Republic of the Congo because government corruption will wick away much of that. And they might buy small arms and attack their neighbors with them. They get treated like children and they stay children.

You kinda had me going along with you at the start of your rant. I thought you were going to go somewhere freakonomics-like on me and was ready for the ride. But your rant against putting money into an endowment [wikipedia.org] and the above quoted rant against p

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that something is happening but I really question when I read "give away" in the news articles when a better term might be "endowed" or just call it what it often is, "an investment in America resulting in good will."

Your problem appears to be with semantics. He and his peers (Gates, et al.) actually aren't "giving money away", as you seem to be saying they should be doing, where poor sods like you can (presumably) receive it and piss it away. He's giving it away to benefit a number of charities where it is presumed it will be managed to do the most good for everyone, not a few luck lottery winners. Your argument is specious and petty. These charities are like the world, theres good one's and there's bad ones. Here's a

I can certainly respect this. It's true altruism, quite unlike when government takes money by force and redistributes it. This is 100% voluntary, and therefore much more impressive and worthy of respect than any government program.

Why you bring political bullshit in? Government don't take money by force, that money is due for all the services you get. Or did you mean like a commerce take your money by foce when you buy something? If you want to argue that you do not get your money's worth of public services, please do so in the appropriate thread/story. eg.: Not this one. Also, true altruism is anonymous donation or volunteering, not making yet a other Metoo foundation.

I hear the USA economy is in a poor way. Might be worth helping out now and investing in their local communities rather than waiting for 50 years...

But fair play to Bill Gates for getting rich folk to sign over more wealth than a lot of folk have done in the past. Some of it's blood money/guilt money and there's a big philosophical debate about the balance of happiness at the end of them giving their money away vs what troubles they might have caused getting there in some cases. But fair play for giving it

'cause conservatives like to laud this kind of thing as a sign that their take on capitalism works. But why should us lower classes have to go begging to some rich guy just to get what they need? Random generosity & hoping for the best isn't a good way to stabilize human society.

'cause conservatives like to laud this kind of thing as a sign that their take on capitalism works. But why should us lower classes have to go begging to some rich guy just to get what they need? Random generosity & hoping for the best isn't a good way to stabilize human society.

The real question here. Why would we want to "stabilize" human society? I think the rate of human progress is in large part due to the inherent instability of human society.

And you could always get a job or even better, start your own business. Then you could save your income rather than spend it frivolously. Then you too could be one of the rich people rather than one of the "beggars".

Remember these people the next time you swing by WalMart and see someone with a cart full of smokes, junk food, Pixar DVDs and a new BluRay player who is moaning about things getting so bad economically that they're being forced to make the choice between medication and food.

Not to say that this is all of them, not by a long shot, but there are enough "working poor" who are poor because of their spending habbits and not because of their income. People who've gotten roped into 862 channels of garbage on the

The definition of "working poor" people is not defined based on how much money someone has, but on raw income relative to an absolute poverty level (USA and Canada), or on a relative poverty level (e.g. 60% of the median income for the EU). How much they buy at WalMart or even how many children they have (like someone else mentioned) is irrelevant.

But why should us lower classes have to go begging to some rich guy just to get what they need?

Because if you're not going to pull enough of your own weight to get what you need, then the other option is to live off of the goodwill of those who do. What entitles you to an illusion of a third option?

'cause conservatives like to laud this kind of thing as a sign that their take on capitalism works. But why should us lower classes have to go begging to some rich guy just to get what they need? Random generosity & hoping for the best isn't a good way to stabilize human society.

Yes, because in the Worker's Paradise, hard work is its own reward. Wait, didn't we try that one already?

But why should us lower classes have to go begging to some rich guy just to get what they need?

Right! Why beg a rich guy for it, or make it yourself, when you can wait for the rich guy to make it, and then just use some of his money to pay government agencies to take more of it from him, and give you a tiny piece of it! Who cares if there are huge administrative costs, as long as we take it from him, that's what matters.

Of course the problem with that is that once you've got your piece of the rich gu

'cause conservatives like to laud this kind of thing as a sign that their take on capitalism works. But why should us lower classes have to go begging to some rich guy just to get what they need? Random generosity & hoping for the best isn't a good way to stabilize human society.

Yeah...because lower classes NEVER go begging to...oh...say...some big entity like the government for a handout. No. Never.

I am not for certain, but I am willing to bet that this 'cash' will be spent on things that will not immediately benefit poor people and the working class.
People need jobs, not cash. No amount of cash donated to a is going to help in the short-term pull us out of the financial crisis we are in right NOW.
If facebook, Microsoft or others were to provide more stable, good-paying jobs to people, that would be more beneficial in the short-term and the long run for our country.
Although I commend the philan

Unbeknown to the plebeian masses, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have been secretly funding research to extend human life. Since the materials and techniques are too expensive to replicate to anything but a select group of individuals, Gates and Buffet have invited only the most elite in to the know under the condition that they give up lots of money. Unfortunately for them, this is only the icing of achievements for Gates and Buffet in the one game they love more than anything else, knowing how to hoodwink

If this douche decides not to, who's there to enforce this pledge? "I was under the influence of several different controlled subs... medications when I signed the papers. I have no idea what I signed. I have changed my mind since, and if you have a problem with that, talk to my lawyers."

Gates and Buffett, like so many of the Industrialists before them, appear to subscribe to the Gospel of Wealth...

what seems to be forgotten in the ensuing adulation is how these folks acquired their wealth... we know about Gates,but Buffett is no kindly grandfather type... the Berkshire Hathaway Reinsurance Group has reaped BILLIONS in justthe last several years via policies that ensured insane increases in homeowner insurance policy...

Buffett is no kindly grandfather type... the Berkshire Hathaway Reinsurance Group has reaped BILLIONS in justthe last several years via policies that ensured insane increases in homeowner insurance policy...

Huh?

There is no customer of Berkshire Hathaway that is forced to purchase a policy from them. If you are unhappy that they raised your rates, go buy a policy elsewhere!

You capitalize BILLIONS as if this is an issue because it's a big number. Berkshire Hathaway is a huge organization, with annual revenues of roughly $112 Billion, from willing customers who choose to buy from this company. As a shareholder, I would be disappointed if they didn't reap BILLIONS.

Funny how when someone does something good with their money, spiteful religious types creep out of the darkness to deride their decisions. Unless of course the money is going to them, then it's the best thing ever.

Gates could have quietly given away his fortune, while everyone called him a greedy S.O.B., and followed the advice of the Biblical quote. Instead, he announced that he was giving it away, and encouraged others to give it away. And many have agreed to, and the world should be a better place because of the public give-away and challenge of Gates.

I know several multi-millionaires who have decided to quietly commit to giving up half, because of this Billionaire Challenge. I'm sure there are many. So Gates' challenge has actually achieved more on earth than had he quietly donated.

Each billionaire that signs up calls more attention to the challenge, and probably causes a few more multi-millionaires to sign up.

What these billionaires are doing is trying to leave a legacy behind. When you are as rich as they are, stuff doesn't mean anything to them any more. They can buy whatever it is that they want. Instead, they want to go down in history books, or keep their name alive, or do whatever it takes to have some sort of imprint on the world well into the future and, presumably, past their death. As AlteredEgg pointed out, money does not buy your way into heaven, but it does keep you pretty famous here on earth.

I don't mean to belittle Zuckerberg's donation, but it really bugs me when the media goes crazy about how "generous" the ultra-wealthy are when then give away a portion of their excess...

Jesus sat down near the collection box in the Temple and watched as the crowds dropped in their money. Many rich people put in large amounts. Then a poor widow came and dropped in two small coins.

Jesus called his disciples to him and said, “I tell you the truth, this poor widow has given more than all the others who are making contributions. For they gave a tiny part of their surplus, but she, poor as she is, has given everything she had to live on.” - Mark 12:41-44

Bill always claimed he was going to give away most of his fortune at age 55, I didn't believe it until I saw him do it. Kudo's to him for his generosity, for keeping his word, and for showing others that mega-philanthropy brings it's own rewards.

An old man walked up a shore littered with thousands of starfish, beached and dying after a storm.

A boy was picking them up and flinging them back into the ocean. "Why do you bother?" the old man scoffed. "You can't save them all. You're not even saving enough to make a difference."

The boy stoped thinking about what he had said.The boy went off to college, learned about buisness and learned how to make useful things.The boy went off and founded his own company with some of his friends and made and incredible amount of money because the boy was very bright and had a tallent for buisness.

Years later as the old man, now positively ancient, walked along the beach spending his days discouraging children from helping starfish the boy, now a man roared past him in a giant automatic beach combing and starfish catapulting machine which he had designed and built with his massive fortune as part of a fleet of vehicles to comb the worlds seashores spewing starfish back into the ocean.

As he passed the young man gave the decrepit old sod the finger and screamed"Can't save them all can I?"

What about all the ones that died while he'd been away building his business? And surely if he was that bright he could have just made a device with a big net where he could run along and scoop up the starfish pretty quickly anyway. Hmm. I really don't get the point of this story, other than both the old man and the boy being douches.

I think the point was that being a negative person who only pokes holes in what others are trying to accomplish serves no purpose, while being optimistic means that, even if you can't achieve what you want right now, you can still work hard and do so later.

This is the original story...
An old man walked up a shore littered with thousands of starfish, beached and dying after a storm. A young man was picking them up
and flinging them back into the ocean. "Why do you bother?" the old man scoffed. "You're not saving enough to make a difference." The
young man picked up another starfish and sent it spinning back to the water. "Made a difference to that one," he said.

a man roared past him in a giant automatic beach combing and starfish catapulting machine which he had designed and built with his massive fortune as part of a fleet of vehicles to comb the worlds seashores spewing starfish back into the ocean

Ah yes, no matter how many times I hear it, the ancient fable of the giant starfish-catapulting machine is still a heartwarming classic.

a man roared past him in a giant automatic beach combing and starfish catapulting machine which he had designed and built with his massive fortune as part of a fleet of vehicles to comb the worlds seashores spewing starfish back into the ocean

Ah yes, no matter how many times I hear it, the ancient fable of the giant starfish-catapulting machine is still a heartwarming classic.

Or at least it was until starfish population grew out of control, ate everything else in the ocean, and cause the biosphere to implode from the starfish imbalance.

Without the starfish on the beach the delicate coastal ecosystem was altered; shore birds that used to feed on the starfish, and feed them to their young went hungry and left. Without the shorebirds the insect population increased and drove everyone from the beach. And I don't want to tell you what the giant automatic beach combing and starfish catapulting machine did to the buried sea turtle eggs.

And thanks to the increased starfish numbers they were able to easily feed on toxic waste left on the bottom by unscrupulous mobsters, grew into 10 story tall starkillers, and promptly attacked Tokyo, which thanks to Godzilla being well fed and fat on monster island after being labeled an endangered species Japan was utterly destroyed robbing the world of strange big eyed cartoons and used panty machines.

As for TFA it reminds me of an old bit I saw "If I have 100 million and you take half I won't be bothered 1 bit, if I have 10,000 and you want half I may have to kill you". While it is nice these uber rich want to blow some of their cash on whatever they consider charity, the simple fact is they could blow money on hookers and blow every day while wiping their asses with hundred dollar bills and the interest alone will make sure they come out ahead. If they really wanted to help out the country that allowed them to make their fortunes maybe they should push for a tax hike on the top 1% and for closing all the loopholes like the "double dutch" that allows them to dodge what little taxes they are supposed to pay? I know Google bounces money all over the place to keep from paying taxes on it, and MSFT has more tax havens than the mob. Maybe paying their fair share might be better than playing Daddy Warbucks?

Bill always claimed he was going to give away most of his fortune at age 55, I didn't believe it until I saw him do it.

You still haven't seen him do it. The Gates Foundation makes for-profit investments in evil, and in order to get immunizations you have to provide strong IP protection to big pharma. If you think Bill Gates is a good guy, you have been fooled. Enjoy your Kool-Aid!

It's a really neat idea. 'We're philanthropists,' says the foundation's representative, 'we'd like to give you drugs - entirely free - that will save tens of thousands of lives in your country.' Pretty much the offer you can't refuse, for any politician - no one wants to be the one that turned down an offer to save that many lives. 'There's just one small thing you have to do for us,' says the foundation. 'Well, not really for us - we'd love to avoid this - but unfortunately the drug companies won't let us have the drugs unless you sign this IP treaty with the USA. It's to protect their investment, you understand.'

Well, that's fine - just one treaty, and it can't be that bad. Until you realise that it means that you are now not allowed to produce cheap generic versions of the drugs locally (or import them) - after the donation runs out, you have to keep buying the US versions that are several times the price. So, after a few years, it's probably going to cost more lives than not taking the money originally, but that's okay, you're a politician, you're not going to be accountable.

Oh, and as a bonus, it protects US IP-based companies (in which, coincidentally, the investors in the B&MGF have a lot of other investments) from foreign competition, by preventing another country from bootstrapping an industrial economy in the same way that the US, China, and so on, did.

Still, it would be hard to be a philanthropist if you ran out of poor people - they're just making sure that they can keep helping people for the foreseeable future.

I am pretty sure that Bill Gates is either way older than 55, or a clone. The summary referred to Bill Gates as Bill Gates 3.0

Maybe it is like Windows and Bill Gates 3.11 for Workgroups will be super awesome and help a bunch of people, but then Bill Gates Millenium will trick people into thinking he is awesome, and punch them in the back of the head whenever he gets the chance.

I think we'll be waiting a while to see it for most of them. From the last sentence of the summary: "give away more than half of their fortune at some point during their lifetime." Some point could very well mean they have it in their will that half the money goes to charity or that they plan to donate the money only when they know they'll be dead soon.

The thing is AFAIK he is now estimated to have a fortune of about 6 billion dollars, and I expect he expects it to grow. Giving away 3 billion dollars still lets him live like a king and earn him public "karma". Anyone except the stupidest/most evil people around would do the same.

Well, aside from Batman/Bruce Wayne being a fictional character, he's meant to be a crazy multi-billionaire, so I really doubt there would be "hundreds of thousands" of people with 20 times more money than him. What the hell are you smoking?

You make it sounds like if everybody invested money, everybody would be 10x richer? Where do you think all this extra money comes from, trees?

Maybe the problem is "investing" really doesn't create as many jobs as you think it does, but instead moves money around between other "investors", and only a tiny tiny amount of that goes to VC loans and things which theoretically would create jobs.

If you "invested" $1M in Exxon stock, how many jobs do you think you're creating? 1? 2? 100? 1000? Let me try another number, zero.

I know of only one sure way to create more jobs. Hire more people. This investing crap is just moving the money around in a big circle jerk with the people at the top. You have to be naive if you believe any significant portion of that money invested "trickles down" to the working class.

I'm sure you would like to think that he is a monster for the damage inflicted on the 'computing world', but the there is much more to life than just computers. By many standards he is a pretty average human being.

I don't agree. The damage done by Facebook to privacy, or by Microsoft to the computing world, is smaller than, say, the damage done to someone by stabbing them--but it's being done over and over and over and over, billions of times. One act of greed isn't as bad as one stabbing, but the damage

I for one donated something more valuable than money: time. It doesn't matter how much money you throw at a problem - if there's no one to actually get off their ass and do something, the problem doesn't get solved.

The problem with small donations is that administrative costs of an organization can often eat up the lion's share of the donations. Having Gates plop down a billion dollars on a charity is a lot more streamlined then 10 million people giving a hundred dollars each. The simpler you keep book keeping the easier it is to uncover waste and fraud as well.

Agreed. A person's generosity is measured not by how much they give away, but how much they spend on themselves.

The multi-billionaire who has a private jet and personal masseuse while giving millions to charity is less generous than the poor family that live in a shack but still manage to give a few hundred dollars a year to help the homeless.